W. T. Grant Co.

670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD W. T. Grant Company and James Bushart, Petitioner, and General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local No. 235, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Case 21-RD-916 November 21, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND ZAGORIA ,Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Sylvan L. Katz ,on August 8, 1969. Following the hearing, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, including the brief, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union, a labor organization, is no longer the representative, as defined in Section 9(a) of the Act, of the employees designated in the petition. 3. The Petitioner seeks to decertify the Union as the representative of the Appliance Service Depot employees, including technicians, drivers, helpers, and clerical employees at the Employer's Appliance Service Depot in Buena Park, California. The Union contends that the petition should be dismissed because the unit sought is not coextensive with the existing collective-bargaining unit, and therefore, is not appropriate for decertification. In 1961, the Employer opened a distribution center in Buena Park and in the same year the Union was certified as the collective-bargaining representative of the warehousemen in the distribution center. In 1961 and 1963, the Employer and Union executed collective-bargaining agreements covering all warehouse employees and excluding, inter alia, office clerical employees. In 1964, the Union was certified as the representative of the office clerical employees, and on May 25, 1964, agreed with the Employer to apply the 1963 contract then in effect to the office clericals. In late 1965, the Employer opened the Appliance Service Depot in the same building in Buena Park, and in July 1966, recognized the Union as the representative of all appliance servicemen, including appliance depot truckdrivers and helpers, and office clerical employees at the Appliance Service Depot. On July 25, 1966, the Union and Employer executed an agreement to extend the provisions of the existing 1963 contract to cover these employees. On October 15, 1966, the Employer and Union executed a new 3-year contract covering all employees at the Distribution Center and Appliance Service Depot, including all warehouse, warehouse office clerical and appliance 'service depot employees. Representives of both the distribution and appliance centers participated in negotiations for the new contract with the Employer's' labor relations counsel. The contract, agreed upon provides the same working conditions and terms -of employment for all employees with certain variations to_ deal with the -'peculiarities' of each operation.' The unit appropriate in a decertification election must be coextensive with either the unit previously certified or the one recognized in the existing contract unit.' The Union contends that the group of Service employees named in the petition constitutes only part of the unit described in the most recent collective-bargaining agreement and, therefore, is not appropriate for decertification. On the other hand, the Employer takes the position that such a unit is appropriate for decertification since the Appliance Service Depot has always been a separate and distinct operating division,3 and, in any event, there has never been an overall unit certification. While there are factors which would tend to establish the propriety of a separate unit of service employees, if this were an initial certification proceeding, the issue before us is whether the Employer and Union have merged this group into the existing unit with other employees. We find that they have done so Thus, when the Union was first recognized as representative of Service Depot employees, the Employer and Union did not The Service Depot, but not the Distribution Center, is open on Saturday Therefore Service Depot employees may have a workweek which includes Saturday Similarly, because of the heavy work load on Christmas Eve day, service employees receive a "floating holiday" in lieu thereof In addition, service technicians have a longer period of probation than other service and distribution employees, such as drivers, helpers, and clericals Also, as operating hours may vary there are minor differences involving the times of reporting to and leaving work Calorator Manufacturing Corp , 129 NLRB 704, fn 3, cf Univac Division of Remington Rand Division of Sperry Rand Corporation, 137 NLRB 1232, Fisher-New Center Co, 170 NLRB No 104, Clohecy Collision, Inc, 176 NLRB No 83 The Employer argues that this separateness will be increased by its intended move of the distribution center to Camarillo, California, 85 miles from its present location Although the Employer has bargained with the Union over the effects of this move, the move has not yet occurred 179 NLRB No. 114 W. T. GRANT,COMPANY negotiate a separate contract for them,, but merely agreed to and applied the extant collective-bargaining agreement. Then in late 1966, when the applicable contract expired, the parties negotiated on an overall basis for a new agreement and entered into one contract providing terms and conditions of employment for all Buena Park employees. Under these circumstances `we find that the separately certified and recognized units have been merged into one overall unit that-covered by the most recent collective-bargaining agreement.4 Accordingly, as the Petitioner is here seeking to 671 decertify only, a segment of the existing bargaining unit, we shall dismiss the petition: ' ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed. herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Our conclusion is not inconsistent with the fact that the Union and Employer have bargained concerning matters affected by •the anticipated move of the distribution center Such sessions do not change the character and scope of the existing unit or negate the 3-year bargaining history on a joint basis